WCIT-12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#World_Conference_on_International_Telecommunications_2012_.28WCIT-12.29

The ITU will facilitate the The World Congress on International Telecommunications or WCIT, a treaty-level conference that addresses the international rules for telecommunications, including international tariffs.^[11] The previous conference to update the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) was held in Melbourne in 1988.^[12] The next conference is taking place in Dubai in December 2012.

[...]

In August 2012, ITU called for a public consultation on a draft document ahead of the conference.^[13] It is claimed the proposal would allow government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet and create a global regime of monitoring internet communications – including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves. It would also allow governments to shut down the internet if there is the belief that it may interfere in the internal affairs of other states or that information of a sensitive nature might be shared.^[14]

[...]

Proposals currently under consideration would establish regulatory oversight by the U.N. over security, fraud, traffic accounting as well as traffic flow, management of Internet Domain Names and IP addresses, and other aspects of the Internet that are currently governed either by community-based approaches such as Regional Internet Registries, ICANN, or largely national regulatory frameworks.^[17] The move by the ITU and some countries has alarmed many within the United States and within the Internet community.^[18][19] Indeed some European telecommunication services have proposed a so-called "sender pays" model which would requires sources of Internet traffic to pay destinations, similar to the way funds are transferred between countries using the telephone.^[20][21]

The WCIT-12 activity has been attacked by Google, who has characterized it as a threat to the "free and open internet".^[22]

>>74
If utility only includes the utility of those that are determined to be normal and law abiding, ie those that are never affected by the penal system, then removing criminals from society, whether it be by indefinite incarceration or by death, would yield a higher utility for those that are selected to live a free life. This is assuming that the free society would experience a net benefit from the removal of the criminals from society, which can only be true if the sum damages hypothetically committed in the future by the removed criminals would out weight the sum contributions to society they may later perform, such as curing cancer. It's easy to look at a criminal and say they will always be this way, but more people have changed their ways than you might think, and it can be facilitated with reform.

If the utility of a society includes the utility of those subjected to incarceration, then reform always wins.

Another way to look at it is through morality. By maintaining the death penalty, the government makes a statement that murder is a form of justice. This gives a message to people, that murder is acceptable when performed in the name of justice. And this gives people the idea that it is ok to kill those that they feel deserve it. Such a mentality would only increase amount of murder in a society.

Finally, when the punishment for a crime has been risen to the death penalty, a criminal has no incentive to give themselves up to law enforcement. A criminal that is interested in survival and rational will always fight to the death to avoid capture. This endangers the lives of bystanders and law enforcement.